Back
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Pralhad, S/o. Dagdu Thorat – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.)
1. In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 passed by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2005, recording guilt of appellant for offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Appellant was charge-sheeted on accusations that, he used to beat and ill-treat his wife Rekhabai on trifle counts. Because of such treatment, mother had lodged complaint in the court of Jalgaon. Still, he continued to ill treat her to suspect her character. On 21.12.2004, he laced her glass of water with some tablets and made forcibly drink it, due to which she fell uneasiness and was taken to civil hospital, Dhule, where her statement was recorded by PW3 Virsing and made the basis for registration of crime bearing No.199 of 2004 for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 307 and 323 IPC, which was investigated by PW1 PSI Sushir and after completing investigation and gathering evidence, appellant was charge-sheeted.
Appellant Pralhad was tried vide Sessions Case No.6 of 2005 by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, who accepted the case of prosecution as regards to offen
For a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge of likely harm, which was not established in this case.
The necessity to prove intentional aid by the accused for conviction under Section 306 of IPC and the principle that the benefit of doubt favors the accused.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on medical evidence and witness testimonies, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime despite the complainant's contradictory statements.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without a clear chain connecting the accused to the crime is insufficient for conviction.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to extent to which it supports prosecution version evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off record.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence of lack of consent and significant doubts raised by the circumstantial evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
